 |
| |
 |
Banning
Cyanide Use in Mining
Cyanide is one of the world's deadliest poisons. Just one teaspoon
of a 2% cyanide solution can be lethal to a healthy human and even
smaller doses can kill wildlife. Despite its toxicity, this same
poison has been widely used by the hard rock mining industry to
assist in the extraction of precious and non-precious metals from
rock. As a result of transportation accidents and leaks, billions
of gallons of this toxic substance have been spilled into the environment
since 1970. Even discounting the dozens of accidents that have occurred
at mine sites, the processes used by the mining industry result
in cyanide and related compounds being contained in discarded mine
wastes, which can pollute our groundwater. Although very small traces
of cyanide are lethal to humans and to wildlife, the mining industry
typically uses hundreds of tons of cyanide each year. Most spills
have involved tens of thousands of tons of this toxic chemical.
In some cases, spills have killed all of the wildlife in an affected
area; in others, soils and groundwater have been affected for years
following a spill. In many cases of cyanide accidents, the mining
companies have gone bankrupt, leaving taxpayers with the burden
of costly cleanup. Considering the risks to water, wildlife, and
human health, controversy over the use of cyanide in mining has
escalated in recent years, resulting in proposed legislation and
public support for banning its use. Spills have occurred across
the country and the world for a variety of reasons from storage
to transport, indicating that there is simply no way to safely make
use of cyanide in mining. Research has presented the mining industry
with non-toxic, cost-effective alternatives to cyanide that need
to be fully explored. For more information on how your state can
ban cyanide use in mining, visit: http://www.serconline.org/mining/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
DE
Senate Passes Bill Setting New Renewables Portfolio Standards (6/24
NCEL News)
http://ncel.net/base.cgim?template=bulletins_archive
On June 22, the Delaware Senate passed SB 161, a bill to set new
renewables portfolio standards for energy suppliers. A Renewables
Portfolio Standard (RPS) ensures that a minimum amount of renewable
energy is included in the portfolio of the electricity resources
serving a state. The bill would set minimum percentages of an electricity
supplier's portfolio that must come from renewable energy resources
in a year, for each year from 2007 through 2020. The goal of the
legislation is to have 10 percent of a supplier's electricity derived
from renewable energy resources by 2020, starting with 1 percent
in 2007. Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy resources -- such
as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, fuel cell, hydroelectric and
water/ocean energy, and energy from the combustion of methane gas
captured from a landfill or from gas via the anaerobic digestion
of organic material -- are constantly replenished and virtually
inexhaustible. The use of a renewables portfolio standard ensures
that a state will have a diverse energy portfolio to protect it
from unstable nonrenewable resource prices and availability. Because
they are homegrown, renewables can also increase energy security,
create local jobs, and generate income, while helping to protect
the environment. For more information on a state RPS, visit: http://www.serconline.org/RPS/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
Louisiana
Passes "Right to Hunt" Legislation (Times-Picayune
6/24)
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-5/108806432067980.xml
The Louisiana legislature has passed Sen. Joe McPherson's bill,
SB 2, proposing a constitutional amendment to include the freedom
to hunt, fish, and trap as a fundamental right of Louisiana citizenship.
The amendment will be on the Nov. 2 ballot. For more than six
years, a wave of so-called "right to hunt" legislative
and constitutional provisions has been sweeping through state
legislatures. At least 21 states have considered these provisions,
and they have passed in at least six states. The provisions are
a radical response, by some members of the hunting community,
to new initiatives regulating certain types of hunting, trapping,
and other perceived "threats" to the sport. In addition,
they could be used to limit the public's use of ballot initiatives
as a tool for managing wildlife. In most states, hunting and fishing
activities are already well protected by law. The impact of the
LA bill is unclear, particularly since it states that "[h]unting,
fishing, and trapping shall be managed by law and regulation."
It could, however, be used as a basis to challenge existing and/or
new laws and regulations in the courts, or as a defense for individual
violations of game and fish laws. Also, concern has been expressed
that these provisions may interfere with endangered species protection.
Most important, however, is the fact that wildlife belongs to
all citizens of a state, hunters and non-hunters alike, and is
held in trust by the state for their benefit. Establishing a constitutional
right to hunt and fish violates that basic trust responsibility,
and elevates the desires of a segment of the population over the
needs of the whole. The Louisiana state constitution should proclaim
rights that guarantee fundamental democratic principles, not provide
protection for recreational purposes. The voters of Louisiana
should reject this amendment as unnecessary and an insult to their
state constitution. For more information, visit: http://www.serconline.org/huntandfish.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
MA:
Plan to Relax Wetlands Protections Decried (Boston
Globe 6/25)
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2004/06/25/state_ready_to_loosen_wetlands_regulations/
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection officials
are rewriting the state's wetland rules -- a move critics
say could mean the destruction of even more fragile ecosystems
than have already been lost over the last decade. The proposed
rules would do away with a wetland review for most projects
50 to 100 feet from a wetland, make it harder to appeal some
wetland decisions, and allow homeowners to more easily build
home additions and pools in flood plains. Wetlands act as
natural pollution filters and flood valves, and 120 of the
state's most threatened species depend on them for their livelihood.
The department, suffering from deep budget cuts, says the
changes will allow staff members to stop spending their time
on relatively minor cases and instead focus on landowners
who are illegally filling in large chunks of wetlands. Environmentalists
contend the relaxing of wetland protections will jeopardize
water quality and wildlife habitat. For more information on
how your state can protect its wetlands, visit: http://www.serconline.org/wetlands/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
NJ:
Court Backs State Effort to Collect Pollution Fines (Star-Ledger
6/25) http://www.nj.com/statehouse/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1088148054105160.xml
The state of New Jersey recently won a court victory validating
its right to collect an unusual type of pollution fine. The
obscure fines are called natural resource damages and require
polluters to compensate the public, in excess of cleanup costs,
for polluting rivers, streams, aquifers, or other natural
features. The fines can range from a few thousand dollars
into the millions. When Governor James McGreevey initiated
a large-scale effort to collect the fines, controversy ensued
and business interests responded by suing the state. Last
week, a Morris County Superior Court judge upheld the state's
actions, but referred the case to the Appellate Division to
determine if the state needs to use the formal rulemaking
process to establish a formula for the fines. Just yesterday,
the State Assembly passed a bill aimed at protecting innocent
property owners from being sued for natural resource damages.
Environmentalists worry that the ambiguity associated with
the wording of this bill may enable polluters to escape fines
by merely selling their property. The bill has yet to be approved
by the Senate and critics hope that the language will be clarified
in joint committee. |
| back
to top |
| |
California
Bill Would Severely Curtail Bottom Trawling (San
Francisco Chronicle 6/24)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/24/BAGQV7B0NN1.DTL
A bill that would sharply limit bottom trawling in California
ocean waters cleared a major state legislative hurdle, and
is expected to become law in the Golden State. SB 1459 would
considerably restrict bottom trawling in state waters. Bottom
trawling, which involves scraping large nets along the seabed,
is one of the most destructive fishing practices because it
can destroy sensitive marine habitats and kill large numbers
of non-target fish and crustaceans, also known as "bycatch."
The bill was approved in a 9-6 vote by the Assembly Water,
Parks, and Wildlife Committee last week. It had already passed
requisite committees in the state Senate. Analysts say it
should easily pass on the floors of both houses, and that
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to sign it. |
| back
to top |
| |
Wisconsin
DNR Approves Mercury Reduction Rules (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
6/17; 6/24)
http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/jun04/237550.asp
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jun04/238912.asp
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has approved
rules that will taper mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants in the state. These plants would have to cut emissions
of the highly toxic element 40 percent, by 2010, and 75 percent,
by 2015. The policy-setting board of the DNR first approved
the regulations a year ago, but legislative leaders said the
2003 package went too far. A key change from a year ago is
that state regulations must be changed to reflect future federal
mercury reduction regulations. The Bush administration advanced
a mercury rule package that was weaker than Wisconsin's. In
April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it would
delay final action until next March, after environmentalists
said the rules would take too long to cut emissions. Last
year, the DNR estimated that a 40 percent reduction in mercury
emissions could cost the state's four largest utilities $28
million-$33 million annually, or $6-$7 a year for average
residential customers. The second phase of cuts, then estimated
at 80 percent, would cumulatively cost $87 million-$104 million,
or $18-$21 a year. A growing body of science has pointed to
the dangers of eating too much mercury-laden fish, prompting
the DNR, in 2001, to broaden its fish consumption advisory
sharply, from 341 lakes to all of the more than 15,000 lakes
in Wisconsin. For further information on the environmental
safety and health issues posed by mercury, visit: http://www.serconline.org/mercury/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
California:
Bill Requiring Home Solar Systems Advances (Contra
Costa Times 6/24)
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/state/9000165.htm
A bill requiring homebuilders to install solar energy systems
in 15 percent of new houses built in 2006 narrowly passed
the California Assembly Housing and Community Development
Committee. The vote was split on party lines, with 5 Democrats
in favor and 4 Republicans in opposition. The bill would put
California on pace with countries like Japan and Germany in
mandating the adoption of solar systems. By 2010, the bill
would require 55 percent of new houses to have the systems.
The bill, however, also includes exemptions for development
in Northern California and the Sierra Nevada as well as plots
of land that contain an abundance of trees that could potentially
block the sun. Opponents claim that the solar systems will
add to already inflated building costs, pricing larger percentages
of the state population out of the housing market. |
| back
to top |
| |
Florida
Manatee Bill Weakens Protection (St. Petersburg Times
6/24)
http://www.stpetetimes.com/2004/06/24/State/Manatee_study_bill_so.shtml
Last week, a compromise bill calling for a study of manatee
habitat was signed by Gov. Jeb Bush. Some environmentalists
fear the move may weaken current protections for the marine
mammal. SB 540 addresses, in part, the process by which officials
decide what manatee protections -- such as slow-speed zones
for boats -- will be put in place in certain areas. It says
that, in areas where biological goals for a certain number
of manatees have been met, officials should give "great
weight" to current regulations. Some environmental groups
urged Bush to veto the bill, saying that the bill limits the
state's ability to adopt new, more restrictive speed zones,
which would further protect the sea cows. The measure also
calls for a study of manatee habitat, analysis of the effectiveness
of manatee protection signs, and boater compliance with signs.
It also provides for further research on genetic tagging of
manatees. For information on how your state can protect endangered
species, visit: http://www.serconline.org/esa/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
CA
Seasonal Wetlands Protection Bill Now Dead (San Francisco
Chronicle 6/23; San Francisco Bee 6/22)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/23/BAGRP7AF6I1.DTL
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9742774p-10665779c.html
California SB 1477, a wetlands-related bill, introduced by
Sen. Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto), died in an Assembly committee
last week, lacking support from Assembly Democrats. The bill
would have extended state oversight to seasonal wetlands that
environmentalists say have been left vulnerable due to rollbacks
in federal law. The lack of protection stems from a 2001 Bush
administration directive to stop the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
offices from enforcing Clean Water Act protection for seasonal
wetlands, which constitute a significant portion of California's
wetlands and water sources. In addition to supplying much
of the state's water, seasonal waters provide food and habitat
for many fish and wildlife species. Writing an editorial in
the Sacramento Bee, Defenders of Wildlife Executive VP Jamie
Rappaport Clark chided California lawmakers for bowing to
pressure from industry lobbyists. Faced with opposition from
influential agricultural, business, and landowner groups,
the bill's sponsor failed to get the bill passed, even after
he offered to amend the bill to exclude provisions to which
the groups objected. Those opposing the legislation insist
that existing state law provides adequate wetlands protection
and that the new bill would expand the state's role in such
protection beyond original federal rules. For more information
on state action to protect sensitive wetlands, visit: http://www.serconline.org/wetlands/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
States,
Environmental Groups File Brief in Global Warming Case (ENS
6/23)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-23-09.asp
A coalition, including 11 states and 14 environmental groups,
filed their brief last week in a case challenging the Bush
administration's decision not to regulate emissions of greenhouse
gases -- in particular, carbon dioxide (CO2) -- as pollutants
under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration announced
last August that, without clear legal authority from Congress,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is prohibited
from taking any regulatory action to address climate change.
In October 2003, the plaintiffs challenged the EPA's decision
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. They contend
the statute is flexible enough to allow CO2 regulations and
say the Bush administration must start taking climate change
seriously. The coalition contends the act authorizes the agency
to regulate "any air pollutant" that may adversely
affect "public health or welfare," and says the
statute's definitions section provides that effects on welfare
include effects on "weather" and "climate."
States challenging the EPA's decision are California, Connecticut,
Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. |
| back
to top |
| |
CA:
Bill Seeks to Curb Polluting Mexican Trucks (Los
Angeles Times 6/22)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-trucks22jun22,0,2860932.story?coll=la-news-politics-california
In the wake of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that
paves the way for Mexican trucks to enter the United States,
a California lawmaker has proposed new legislation that would
impede access to the state unless they meet federal air pollution
standards. The Supreme Court threw out a lower court order
that had blocked the trucks from entering the country on the
grounds that they would worsen pollution in areas of the Southwest
that already suffer from bad air quality. Supported by a coalition
of environmentalists and truckers, the bill would require
Mexican trucks, in order to cross the border, to meet the
same federal air pollution standards for their model year
as their U.S. counterparts. Mexican trucks typically run on
diesel fuel, like American trucks, but many are older and
have less sophisticated pollution controls. The trucks, however,
would not be held to California's stricter air pollution standards.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has estimated
that Mexican trucks would add 50 tons of pollution a day to
greater Los Angeles' air. This amount exceeds the pollution
of all of the area's largest industrial sites combined and
could potentially escalate public health risks and add to
the city's air quality woes. Critics of the measure claim
that this figure is misleading because Mexican trucks in the
long-haul business, more than likely, will be newer, more
efficient models. Supporters argue that Mexico did not implement
emission standards until 1993 and, even today, if you purchase
a Mexican truck, it would be significantly dirtier than a
similar one bought in the U.S. |
| back
to top |
| |
Maine
Environmental Board Approves New Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Rules (Concord Monitor 6/18)
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040618/REPOSITORY/406180371/1002/NEWS02
In an ongoing effort to reduce statewide emissions of greenhouse
gasses, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection approved
the first of several rules expected to pass. Last week, the
board voted in favor of a new requirement that paper mills,
power plants, and factories track greenhouse gas emissions
and report the data to the state Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). The federal government does require reporting
of air pollutants; however, a handful of states, including
New Jersey and Connecticut, require businesses to track greenhouse
gases. Maine's rule will impose stricter reporting requirements
for a long list of federally-regulated air pollutants. Emissions
of such substances as ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, and other greenhouse gases must be reported beginning
July 1, 2005. With the rule in place, the DEP will start collecting
accurate data on Maine's contribution to global climate change
to eventually use in building incentive programs for reducing
greenhouse gasses. For more information on how your state
can reduce green house gas emissions, visit: http://www.serconline.org/ghg/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
Obscure
1953 Law Blocks NY Town's
Plan for Renewable Energy (New York Times 6/21)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/nyregion/21power.html
The New York town of Pleasant Valley recently decided to derive
its energy for street lamps, several public parks, and other
municipal needs from clean and renewable wind energy. After
numerous town meetings and discussions, the town's taxpayers
were willing to pay about $1.88 more each year for the change,
but the decision has collided with a 1953 state law that requires
municipalities to use the cheapest source available for a
commodity, in order to protect taxpayers from excessive government
spending. The old law could be a big impediment to Pleasant
Valley and several other towns that are looking into using
renewable energy resources to supply a portion of energy needs.
If a solution around the law is not found, it also could present
problems for Gov. George Pataki's plan to have renewable energy
account for 25 percent of the state's electricity needs by
2013. As of yet, some towns are defiantly ignoring the state
law, insisting that, if it's worth it to local residents to
pay a little more for their electricity and it helps reduce
environmental impact and pollution, they'll keep doing it
until someone stops them. Some state lawmakers have introduced
bills to get around the law, such as Assemblywoman Sandra
Galef's proposal to allow municipal officials to pay 15 percent
above market rates to receive electricity from renewable resources. |
| back
to top |
|
|
